Dare we speak about "Brexit?"

Status
Closed
Jun 2016
1,748
England, 200 yards from Wales
As an external observer, I would say that one of the problems on the British side is that the Conservative government made a referendum campaign to remain in EU [after negotiating a special status for UK and obtaining a particular agreement]. So that the government wasn't ready to manage a Brexit. Cameron resigned, but in the Conservative party they didn't prepare a clear plan for a possible Brexit, so that the new government [leaded by Mrs May] is not that ready to manage Brexit as well.

On the other side, EU is underlining some conditions which are not negotiable according to what UK asks ... if UK wants A,B,C ... UK has to concede J,M and T.

If we knew with accuracy what UK wanted, let's say in summer 2016, now we would have already solved similar problems. But unfortunately we are not sure yet to have understood what UK wants from EU ...
That seems a reasonable summary to me. Cameron called the referendum for his own political purposes, had no idea or plan what to do if leave won, and so, when it did, he fled over the horizon leaving the whole problem in the hands of a divided governing party, which is still arguing within itself about 'what the UK wants'.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,656
There no great rush, please calm down.

As an existing, independent, member of the WTO the UK can simply keep the same WTO schedules as the EU but, quite literally, change “EU” to “UK” with very little change (after the initial period of uncertainty that all markets indulge in).
No - that can't. That is what the UK proposed and which has been opposed pretty much by every one (sans the EU) so it won't be happening. And for the UK TRQs to be accepted for the WTO they need to be accepted across all the WTO member states essentially by unanimity. Technically the EU may need to go through the same acceptance process too. But for the EU this means relatively little since it has many trade agreements with foreign trading partners which would remain in place regardless of the EU's WTO status.
I have no idea what Argentina can offer the UK which would instigate the transfer of Falkland sovereignty, any suggestions?
I suppose the answer would be the verification of UK's TRQs allowing it to trade fully under WTO rules. So in essence - nothing less than UK's de facto WTO membership. I doubt they would try that though but UK might need to make concessions (i.e. allowing more imports in undermining UK's own production).

As some one said quite succinctly: 'There are no sharks in Lake Geneva, but the WTO is full of them. They smell blood in the water and they're going to demand their pound of flesh.'



Actually, fishing is going to be worth anything only for a short while. Fish stock around the World is dwindling, there is no future in it. Your daughter will get no benefit from fishing rights, because there will be no fish.
Yep. Fish farming, especially indoors so that it won't be polluting the waters, is the likely future.
 
Last edited:

Haesten

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,874
Actually, fishing is going to be worth anything only for a short while. Fish stock around the World is dwindling, there is no future in it. Your daughter will get no benefit from fishing rights, because there will be no fish.
There won't be if the EU/CFP rules allow Dutch pulse boats right up to our beaches.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,971
But the choice in or out, at the end is just a political choice.
They could have done that in the autumn of 2016. The reason why they waited until march 2017 to invoke article 50 and take up the maximum of 2 years, for it is a limit, not a requirement, is that they want to be out but keep as many benefits as they can. The EU are not budging on this. They will not allow the four freedoms to be eroded.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,266
Lago Maggiore, Italy
They could have done that in the autumn of 2016. The reason why they waited until march 2017 to invoke article 50 and take up the maximum of 2 years, for it is a limit, not a requirement, is that they want to be out but keep as many benefits as they can. The EU are not budging on this. They will not allow the four freedoms to be eroded.
The maximum of 2 years?

Those 2 years start when a EU member communicates to EU the will to leave. UK could have waited until 2030 to express its will to leave. It would have changed nothing, since at London they don't know what to do.

On TV news they are saying that Northern Ireland is a real mess about Brexit. To keep the border open with Ireland could mean that Great Britain could put customs between GB and Northern Ireland [Imagine the reaction of the Unionists!].
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,971
There no great rush, please calm down.
Am quite calm thankyou despite you not being familiar with WTO.

We already have a WTO agreement with Argentina which, given your comment, will come as a surprise to you. There is only one country that trades solely on WTO terms and that is Mauretania. Like most WTO member countries, the UK has to agree a trade deal with any country that it wants to trade with on WTO terms. The UK will only have 24 WTO trading partners as it will lose the 68 other partners that it has as a member of the EU. The 24 include Russia and Argentina who will be able to apply pressure to any trade deal the UK proposes to have with a new country by claiming discrimination against their goods and having it referred to the Court of Dispute Resolution. We will be able to trade with 24 countries only under WTO and effectively will have to get their agreement to trade with any new country under WTO. If we want to expand our business under WTO, we face 24 new negotiations with the 24 existing partners. If we seek to expand our trade deal under WTO terms with China for example, any of the other 23 can object. They have to state their case and prove it but, it takes time even if they have no grounds.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions